Just a few news briefs before inauguration fever sets in . . .
Groups criticize survey supporting gay military ban - It turns out that a recent poll from Army Times magazine that supports a gay military ban is faulty. No kidding. Of course this revelation means nothing to our friends Elaine Donnelly, Peter LaBarbera, or the folks at One News Now.
Hate Crimes Legislation Induces Right Wing Paranoia - There they go again.
Short gain = more spousal benefits for same-sex couples - This piece typifies just how nasty and coldhearted some members of the religious right can be. They don't even want lgbts to have the right to leave spousal benefits to our partners on the event of death. I said some members because of the comments section. The nastiness of FRC's Peter Sprigg in this article causes the commentators to call him out. It's unbelievable.
Fact: Porter Gets Fringier By the Day - This is an old post, but it deserves more attention. Barack Obama is literally driving Janet Folger Porter bonkers. It's like a 21st century remake of The Story of Adele H.
And now - the worst commercials in the history of commercials - Look for gay themes in this if you want. Why am I including it? Because I want you to suffer through it like I did when I was a child.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Family Research Council continues to use 'outdated' work
In December of last year, I emailed the Family Research Council inquiring about the quiet removal of several studies from its webpage. These studies were designed to prove the alleged "dangers of homosexuality."
They were:
"Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse"
"The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality,"
"Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk"
Tuesday night, I received an answer via email:
Dear Alvin,
Thank you for contacting Family Research Council.
The papers that you inquired about have been removed from our website indefinitely due to the fact that they have outdated sources. However, we have other resources on our website that contain similar information, such as the following:
Getting It Straight
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK04A01
What's wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01
Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03D1
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01
You think that would be the end of the story.
Hardly.
The Family Research Council seems to have taken the studies it claims to contain "outdated sources," polished them up, and are now pushing them as credible, up-to-date work.
However, many of these "new" resources contain the same information as the "outdated" studies, sometimes verbatim, including the same endnote citations.
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples (still on the webpage) and the Negative Effects of Homosexuality (removed from the webpage) is a perfect example of this. Among other things, both contain the following:
- A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general.
A passage from Homosexualities clearly says:
“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”
- A citation of the book The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop by David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison despite the fact that the book was written 1984 and was not meant to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general.
A passage from The Male Couple says:
“We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location, and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay
male community.”
This is important because even if one were to ignore the obvious misusage of these books, their published dates (1978 and 1984 respectively) leads one to ask what exactly does the Family Research Council consider to be an "outdated source?"
And that isn't all I found.
As I said before, some of the studies now present on the Family Research Council's webpage (and thus considered to be accurate) contain some of the same information and citations present in the "outdated" studies.
Some of this information has gotten the Family Research Council in trouble a number of years ago.
Look at the study, Getting It Straight for example.
In chapter 4 - Is Homosexuality a Health Risk, there is this passage (pg. 88):
A study of 3,365 high school students published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found: “Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or not sure male students were 6.50 times more likely to report a suicide attempt than heterosexual male students. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or not sure female students were 2.02 times more likely to report a suicide attempt than their heterosexual female peers.”
Robert Garofalo, et al, “Sexual Orientation and Risk of Suicide Attempts among a Representative Sample of Youth,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 153 (May 1999): 490.
In 1998, Garofalo complained that FRC and several other religious right groups was distorting his research. According to him, the groups omitted a crucial part of his findings (i.e. gay teens engage in negative behavior - suicide attempts - when faced with abuse from a homophobic society). Interestingly enough, when Garofalo complained, then FRC staff member Robert Knight questioned his credibility. (Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998 )
Then there is this passage in the same chapter on pg. 89:
A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:
• “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”
In 2001, the researchers of this study complained that their work was being distorted by organizations like FRC.
Now wouldn't complaints by a study's author render it unusuable or a possible "outdated source?"
Apparently not to the Family Research Council.
Also:
Chapter 5 of Getting it Straight, Do Homosexual Parents Pose a Risk to Children, is interesting in that except for a few alterations (i.e. rearranging of text) it is identical to Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk - one of the studies FRC removed from its webpage claiming that it contained "outdated sources."
By that same token, chapter 6 of Getting It Straight, Is There a Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse? is a total rehash of Homosexuality and Child Abuse, yet another study that FRC removed from its page for having "outdated sources."
What's interesting about Homosexuality and Child Abuse is that a researcher cited in it, Nicholas Groth, sent a letter to FRC in 2002 complaining about how his work was being distorted to prove that gays molest children at a higher number that heterosexuals - something that his work found not to be true.
However, despite his complaint over five years ago, Groth's work is cited in Getting It Straight (pg. 123):
Another study found that “some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O’Brien, 1980).”
These are just a few of the things that I found. There so many other inaccuracies in these supposed credible studies. All of it makes one wonder just exactly is FRC's definition of an "outdated source."
And if I can take the question further - just what exactly is FRC's definition of truth and Christian principles?
It is ironic that while FRC head Tony Perkins pleads innocent ennui and criticizes lgbts for our supposed intolerance, his group engages in tactics that justify our position of anger.
Regardless of one's personal beliefs about homosexuality, no one should approve of FRC's deceptive tactics.
Hat tip to Emproph for sending me a link to FRC's "outdated" studies.
They were:
"Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse"
"The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality,"
"Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk"
Tuesday night, I received an answer via email:
Dear Alvin,
Thank you for contacting Family Research Council.
The papers that you inquired about have been removed from our website indefinitely due to the fact that they have outdated sources. However, we have other resources on our website that contain similar information, such as the following:
Getting It Straight
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK04A01
What's wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01
Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03D1
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01
You think that would be the end of the story.
Hardly.
The Family Research Council seems to have taken the studies it claims to contain "outdated sources," polished them up, and are now pushing them as credible, up-to-date work.
However, many of these "new" resources contain the same information as the "outdated" studies, sometimes verbatim, including the same endnote citations.
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples (still on the webpage) and the Negative Effects of Homosexuality (removed from the webpage) is a perfect example of this. Among other things, both contain the following:
- A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general.
A passage from Homosexualities clearly says:
“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”
- A citation of the book The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop by David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison despite the fact that the book was written 1984 and was not meant to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general.
A passage from The Male Couple says:
“We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location, and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay
male community.”
This is important because even if one were to ignore the obvious misusage of these books, their published dates (1978 and 1984 respectively) leads one to ask what exactly does the Family Research Council consider to be an "outdated source?"
And that isn't all I found.
As I said before, some of the studies now present on the Family Research Council's webpage (and thus considered to be accurate) contain some of the same information and citations present in the "outdated" studies.
Some of this information has gotten the Family Research Council in trouble a number of years ago.
Look at the study, Getting It Straight for example.
In chapter 4 - Is Homosexuality a Health Risk, there is this passage (pg. 88):
A study of 3,365 high school students published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found: “Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or not sure male students were 6.50 times more likely to report a suicide attempt than heterosexual male students. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or not sure female students were 2.02 times more likely to report a suicide attempt than their heterosexual female peers.”
Robert Garofalo, et al, “Sexual Orientation and Risk of Suicide Attempts among a Representative Sample of Youth,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 153 (May 1999): 490.
In 1998, Garofalo complained that FRC and several other religious right groups was distorting his research. According to him, the groups omitted a crucial part of his findings (i.e. gay teens engage in negative behavior - suicide attempts - when faced with abuse from a homophobic society). Interestingly enough, when Garofalo complained, then FRC staff member Robert Knight questioned his credibility. (Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998 )
Then there is this passage in the same chapter on pg. 89:
A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:
• “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”
In 2001, the researchers of this study complained that their work was being distorted by organizations like FRC.
Now wouldn't complaints by a study's author render it unusuable or a possible "outdated source?"
Apparently not to the Family Research Council.
Also:
Chapter 5 of Getting it Straight, Do Homosexual Parents Pose a Risk to Children, is interesting in that except for a few alterations (i.e. rearranging of text) it is identical to Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk - one of the studies FRC removed from its webpage claiming that it contained "outdated sources."
By that same token, chapter 6 of Getting It Straight, Is There a Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse? is a total rehash of Homosexuality and Child Abuse, yet another study that FRC removed from its page for having "outdated sources."
What's interesting about Homosexuality and Child Abuse is that a researcher cited in it, Nicholas Groth, sent a letter to FRC in 2002 complaining about how his work was being distorted to prove that gays molest children at a higher number that heterosexuals - something that his work found not to be true.
However, despite his complaint over five years ago, Groth's work is cited in Getting It Straight (pg. 123):
Another study found that “some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O’Brien, 1980).”
These are just a few of the things that I found. There so many other inaccuracies in these supposed credible studies. All of it makes one wonder just exactly is FRC's definition of an "outdated source."
And if I can take the question further - just what exactly is FRC's definition of truth and Christian principles?
It is ironic that while FRC head Tony Perkins pleads innocent ennui and criticizes lgbts for our supposed intolerance, his group engages in tactics that justify our position of anger.
Regardless of one's personal beliefs about homosexuality, no one should approve of FRC's deceptive tactics.
Hat tip to Emproph for sending me a link to FRC's "outdated" studies.
Glenn T. Stanton is no expert
Focus on the Family staff member Glen Stanton was on Dr. Phil today on a program about transgender children. At one point, Stanton was billed as an "expert."
Now in Dr. Phil's defense, he pretty much allowed Stanton and the other guest, Joseph Nicolosi to cut their own throats. They had no idea what they were talking about and it showed. Also Dr. Phil gave the legitimate medical professional the final word in a one-on-one conversation; something that was very appropriate.
So all in all, I thought the show went well.
But I think in terms of religious right spokespeople, the word "expert" is used too much.
I looked into Stanton's background and found the following:
Glenn T. Stanton is the research fellow for global family formation at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs. He is also directing a major research project on international family formation trends at the Institute of Marriage and Family in Ottawa. He debates and lectures extensively on the issues of gender, sexuality, marriage and parenting at universities and churches around the country. He recently served the Bush administration as a consultant on increasing fatherhood involvement in the Head Start program.
. . . A graduate of the University of West Florida, Glenn earned a master’s degree in interdisciplinary humanities with an emphasis in philosophy, history and religion. He has also taught in each of these disciplines.
All impressive but there is nothing that constitutes him to speak expertly on the issue of homosexuality.
That bothers me.
Other things bother me about Stanton.
According to Box Turtle Bulletin, last year, Stanton claimed that there’s a “clear consensus” among anthropologists that “A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.”
The University of California at Irvine’s Anthropology Chair Bill Maurer and Associate Professor Tom Boellstorff as well as the American Anthropological Association all vehemently disagreed with this claim.
I have no idea how Stanton felt he was credentialed to speak for the anthropological community. Whatever the case, the rebuke put Stanton in the company of so many other religious right spokespeople who have been called to the carpet because of their distortion of legitimate studies, including his boss James Dobson.
And then I am bothered by a piece Stanton wrote called Why Homosexuality Falls Short of the Ideal. This passage especially gave me pause:
HIV is the most notable infection associated with homosexual sex and other promiscuous behaviors, but it is important to realize that this is only part of the problem. Professor Thomas Schmidt, in his excellent study of homosexuality, Straight & Narrow?, explains, "Doctors who work with homosexual men are now trained to look regularly for at least 15 common afflictions apart from HIV/AIDS and we could double or triple the number by taking into account less common problems."
The problem with this is that Thomas Schmidt, who is not a medical physician or researcher but a theologian, freely used the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron in the book Stanton cited - Straight and Narrow? Compassion and clarity in the homosexual debate.
Proof of that is here:
6. About 80% of homosexual men engage in anal intercourse, and consequently suffer from a condition known to doctors as 'Gay Bowel syndrome'. This is a cocktail of physical trauma and a long list of infectious diseases. (Schmidt, p.108,109; F.R.I. report, "Medical Consequences...")
8. In the homosexual community as a whole, evidence of life-long faithful relationships is almost non-existent. One study showed 1%. (Schmidt, p.105-108; F.R.I. report "Same Sex Marriage")
22. While only a minority of homosexuals are paedophiles, male homosexual paedophilia is intensely active. Consequently approx. 80% of paedophilic victims are boys who are molested by adult males. (Schmidt, p.114; F.R.I. report. "Child Molestation and Homosexuality")
Editor's note - F.R.I. stands for Family Research Institute, the organization created and run by Paul Cameron.
What Stanton did is a clever trick propagated by religious right "experts" who are well aware of the flaws in Cameron's work - not citing Cameron directly but citing another person who originally cites Cameron.
Last year on this blog, I talked about how the Family Research Council has covertly removed the "studies" of its homosexuality expert Timothy Dailey from its webpage.
It seems that the same bit of chicanery may be going on with Focus on the Family and Glenn T. Stanton.
I first found Stanton's homosexuality paper on the webpage of the Palmetto Family Council. It said clearly that he was the author of the study.
However, on the Palmetto Family Council's new webpage, the study remains but Stanton's byline is gone.
In addition, I could not find the piece on the Focus on the Family webpage.
It just goes to show that one unfortunate aspects of this so-called cultural war is how anyone with a religious testimony and/or a phony organization with an official sounding name can suddenly be considered to know more about homosexuality than us who are lgbt.
From Linda Harvey to Janet Folger Porter to Timothy Dailey to Matt Barber to Peter LaBarbera to Glenn T. Stanton - the list goes on and on. and they are all phonies.
Let me clarify one fact. I don't have a problem with these folks entering the conversation on lgbts, gender identity or the like. I have a problem with their audacity and their lack of honesty. Often times, these individuals have no desire to be objective. They already have a preconceived religious beliefs which they manipulate science, facts, and common sense to adhere to.
They are not experts and they don't need to be called such.
The problem is that talk shows like Dr. Phil won't vet these people. They just book them on the show as "experts," which gives them undeserved credibility. And all under the guise of "seeing both sides of the issue."
In the long run, it's up to the lgbt community to make the noise and expose these charlatans.
We need to put a serious kibosh their lies by challenging their credentials, or lack of credentials, and their shoddy workmanship at every turn.
Focus on the Family staff member Glen Stanton was on Dr. Phil today on a program about transgender children. At one point, Stanton was billed as an "expert."
Now in Dr. Phil's defense, he pretty much allowed Stanton and the other guest, Joseph Nicolosi to cut their own throats. They had no idea what they were talking about and it showed. Also Dr. Phil gave the legitimate medical professional the final word in a one-on-one conversation; something that was very appropriate.
So all in all, I thought the show went well.
But I think in terms of religious right spokespeople, the word "expert" is used too much.
I looked into Stanton's background and found the following:
Glenn T. Stanton is the research fellow for global family formation at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs. He is also directing a major research project on international family formation trends at the Institute of Marriage and Family in Ottawa. He debates and lectures extensively on the issues of gender, sexuality, marriage and parenting at universities and churches around the country. He recently served the Bush administration as a consultant on increasing fatherhood involvement in the Head Start program.
. . . A graduate of the University of West Florida, Glenn earned a master’s degree in interdisciplinary humanities with an emphasis in philosophy, history and religion. He has also taught in each of these disciplines.
All impressive but there is nothing that constitutes him to speak expertly on the issue of homosexuality.
That bothers me.
Other things bother me about Stanton.
According to Box Turtle Bulletin, last year, Stanton claimed that there’s a “clear consensus” among anthropologists that “A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.”
The University of California at Irvine’s Anthropology Chair Bill Maurer and Associate Professor Tom Boellstorff as well as the American Anthropological Association all vehemently disagreed with this claim.
I have no idea how Stanton felt he was credentialed to speak for the anthropological community. Whatever the case, the rebuke put Stanton in the company of so many other religious right spokespeople who have been called to the carpet because of their distortion of legitimate studies, including his boss James Dobson.
And then I am bothered by a piece Stanton wrote called Why Homosexuality Falls Short of the Ideal. This passage especially gave me pause:
HIV is the most notable infection associated with homosexual sex and other promiscuous behaviors, but it is important to realize that this is only part of the problem. Professor Thomas Schmidt, in his excellent study of homosexuality, Straight & Narrow?, explains, "Doctors who work with homosexual men are now trained to look regularly for at least 15 common afflictions apart from HIV/AIDS and we could double or triple the number by taking into account less common problems."
The problem with this is that Thomas Schmidt, who is not a medical physician or researcher but a theologian, freely used the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron in the book Stanton cited - Straight and Narrow? Compassion and clarity in the homosexual debate.
Proof of that is here:
6. About 80% of homosexual men engage in anal intercourse, and consequently suffer from a condition known to doctors as 'Gay Bowel syndrome'. This is a cocktail of physical trauma and a long list of infectious diseases. (Schmidt, p.108,109; F.R.I. report, "Medical Consequences...")
8. In the homosexual community as a whole, evidence of life-long faithful relationships is almost non-existent. One study showed 1%. (Schmidt, p.105-108; F.R.I. report "Same Sex Marriage")
22. While only a minority of homosexuals are paedophiles, male homosexual paedophilia is intensely active. Consequently approx. 80% of paedophilic victims are boys who are molested by adult males. (Schmidt, p.114; F.R.I. report. "Child Molestation and Homosexuality")
Editor's note - F.R.I. stands for Family Research Institute, the organization created and run by Paul Cameron.
What Stanton did is a clever trick propagated by religious right "experts" who are well aware of the flaws in Cameron's work - not citing Cameron directly but citing another person who originally cites Cameron.
Last year on this blog, I talked about how the Family Research Council has covertly removed the "studies" of its homosexuality expert Timothy Dailey from its webpage.
It seems that the same bit of chicanery may be going on with Focus on the Family and Glenn T. Stanton.
I first found Stanton's homosexuality paper on the webpage of the Palmetto Family Council. It said clearly that he was the author of the study.
However, on the Palmetto Family Council's new webpage, the study remains but Stanton's byline is gone.
In addition, I could not find the piece on the Focus on the Family webpage.
It just goes to show that one unfortunate aspects of this so-called cultural war is how anyone with a religious testimony and/or a phony organization with an official sounding name can suddenly be considered to know more about homosexuality than us who are lgbt.
From Linda Harvey to Janet Folger Porter to Timothy Dailey to Matt Barber to Peter LaBarbera to Glenn T. Stanton - the list goes on and on. and they are all phonies.
Let me clarify one fact. I don't have a problem with these folks entering the conversation on lgbts, gender identity or the like. I have a problem with their audacity and their lack of honesty. Often times, these individuals have no desire to be objective. They already have a preconceived religious beliefs which they manipulate science, facts, and common sense to adhere to.
They are not experts and they don't need to be called such.
The problem is that talk shows like Dr. Phil won't vet these people. They just book them on the show as "experts," which gives them undeserved credibility. And all under the guise of "seeing both sides of the issue."
In the long run, it's up to the lgbt community to make the noise and expose these charlatans.
We need to put a serious kibosh their lies by challenging their credentials, or lack of credentials, and their shoddy workmanship at every turn.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Ken Blackwell cures this brotha's Monday blaahs
Lord, it's so hard to keep up with all of the mess emanating from the religious right.
For the benefit of those who don't know, in addition to updating my two blogs, I have an 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. job. So sometimes I can't keep up with the news like so many other lgbt blogs. Subsequently when I post, I try to make it a doozy - i.e. either show something new and different or throw out a different dimension to exposing religious right lies.
Today, I was a little under the weather
I turn 38 this upcoming Sunday and I'm not looking forward to it. You can chalk it up to wondering if I have done something relevant with my life so far. I've had this notion many times before.
When I turned 30 and felt that I had not hit the nadir of relevance, I calmed my hysteria by noting that legendary actor Burt Lancaster didn't really start cooking until he reached 32 and that Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison didn't start writing until she was 35.
These days as I approach 40, I tell myself that Jerry Seinfeld didn't really hit it big until he was in his 40s.
I guess if I haven't done anything of relevance by the time I reach 50, I will be pulling Grandma Moses out of my hat.
Right now, I am trying to get together a serious column regarding ENDA, gays, African-Americans and the "privilege of oppression."
Sounds good, don't it?
But leave it to possible GOP National Committee Chairman Ken Blackwell to wake me up.
'Change' Ken Blackwell can believe in
The GOP may select Ken Blackwell to be the first African-American chairman of their National Committee. Something that we can blame on Obama no doubt.
Now I suppose we are going to be inundated with cross conversations between the lgbt community and the heterosexual African-American community on just what is a "civil right." This interview looks to be the possible first salvo.
Personally speaking, the entire conversation drives this black gay man to distraction. Every time lgbts and African-Americans get into this discussion, I feel like a child caught in the middle of a nasty custody battle. (Eat your heart out, Gloria Vanderbilt)
Now while I feel that the lgbt community in general can do more to help black gays and lesbians be more visible, I can't shake the notion that the entire argument puts my heterosexual black brothers and sisters in some of the most unlikely of positions.
Not only does the subject of homosexuality make the black community seem hypocritical (i.e. citing religious belief against homosexuality as a defense when some forms of popular African-American music embrace sexualized images of women and fornication - which you hardly ever hear Harry Jackson or Ken Hutcherson talk about) but it also causes the black community to forget its own history.
Take the notion pushed by some of my heterosexual black brothers and sisters that "gays have it easy because they can hide who they are."
Those who say that tend to forget a sad bit of African-American history.
It's not talked about much now but a while ago, there were some African-Americans who took advantage of their lighter skin tone in order to "pass" for white. They did this to escape the potential dead end life that racism subjected black America to.
Needless to say, those who could not pass weren't exactly happy with the actions of their lighter-skinned brothers and sister.
It was a controversial thing. Books were written about "passing," and vigorous conversations were had about the practice in meeting places such as barbershops and churches.
Hollywood even did several movies on the subject. The most famous had to be Imitation of Life, in which a light-skinned black woman ran away from home in order to pass for white.
Her mother gets so distraught that she dies of a broken heart, And this leads to the climactic, tear jerking ending in which the daughter interrupts the funeral, flings open the hearse and collapses on her mother's coffin in surfeit of hysterical tears.
You can see the scene here.
This leads to me to ask if passing caused so much trouble for African-Americans back then, then why in the hell would it be a good idea for the lgbt community right now?
Trying to be something you aren't isn't good for anyone, be they black, gay or black and gay. It's a practice that must never been encouraged.
News briefs:
Family advocacy group announces Pepsi boycott - brought to you by those who define boycotts by the lgbt community as acts of terror.
Right Wing Leftovers - Mike Huckabee says he is not "pro-sodomy." THANK YOU JESUS!!! I mean we don't just accept anybody.
DADT WITHOUT THE DA - In 1993, those who opposed gays in the military had Colin Powell, Congressman Sam Nunn, the phony studies of Paul Cameron, a host of public officials, and the full force of religious conservatives on their side. Now in 2008, all they have is a phony expert who gets destroyed every time she opens her mouth. I love America.
Always With The Bathroom; Always With The Misrepresentations - There are situations that can only be described as earring-yanking, wig snatching-off moments. What's happening now in Florida is at least 10 of them.
Lord, it's so hard to keep up with all of the mess emanating from the religious right.
For the benefit of those who don't know, in addition to updating my two blogs, I have an 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. job. So sometimes I can't keep up with the news like so many other lgbt blogs. Subsequently when I post, I try to make it a doozy - i.e. either show something new and different or throw out a different dimension to exposing religious right lies.
Today, I was a little under the weather
I turn 38 this upcoming Sunday and I'm not looking forward to it. You can chalk it up to wondering if I have done something relevant with my life so far. I've had this notion many times before.
When I turned 30 and felt that I had not hit the nadir of relevance, I calmed my hysteria by noting that legendary actor Burt Lancaster didn't really start cooking until he reached 32 and that Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison didn't start writing until she was 35.
These days as I approach 40, I tell myself that Jerry Seinfeld didn't really hit it big until he was in his 40s.
I guess if I haven't done anything of relevance by the time I reach 50, I will be pulling Grandma Moses out of my hat.
Right now, I am trying to get together a serious column regarding ENDA, gays, African-Americans and the "privilege of oppression."
Sounds good, don't it?
But leave it to possible GOP National Committee Chairman Ken Blackwell to wake me up.
'Change' Ken Blackwell can believe in
The GOP may select Ken Blackwell to be the first African-American chairman of their National Committee. Something that we can blame on Obama no doubt.
Now I suppose we are going to be inundated with cross conversations between the lgbt community and the heterosexual African-American community on just what is a "civil right." This interview looks to be the possible first salvo.
Personally speaking, the entire conversation drives this black gay man to distraction. Every time lgbts and African-Americans get into this discussion, I feel like a child caught in the middle of a nasty custody battle. (Eat your heart out, Gloria Vanderbilt)
Now while I feel that the lgbt community in general can do more to help black gays and lesbians be more visible, I can't shake the notion that the entire argument puts my heterosexual black brothers and sisters in some of the most unlikely of positions.
Not only does the subject of homosexuality make the black community seem hypocritical (i.e. citing religious belief against homosexuality as a defense when some forms of popular African-American music embrace sexualized images of women and fornication - which you hardly ever hear Harry Jackson or Ken Hutcherson talk about) but it also causes the black community to forget its own history.
Take the notion pushed by some of my heterosexual black brothers and sisters that "gays have it easy because they can hide who they are."
Those who say that tend to forget a sad bit of African-American history.
It's not talked about much now but a while ago, there were some African-Americans who took advantage of their lighter skin tone in order to "pass" for white. They did this to escape the potential dead end life that racism subjected black America to.
Needless to say, those who could not pass weren't exactly happy with the actions of their lighter-skinned brothers and sister.
It was a controversial thing. Books were written about "passing," and vigorous conversations were had about the practice in meeting places such as barbershops and churches.
Hollywood even did several movies on the subject. The most famous had to be Imitation of Life, in which a light-skinned black woman ran away from home in order to pass for white.
Her mother gets so distraught that she dies of a broken heart, And this leads to the climactic, tear jerking ending in which the daughter interrupts the funeral, flings open the hearse and collapses on her mother's coffin in surfeit of hysterical tears.
You can see the scene here.
This leads to me to ask if passing caused so much trouble for African-Americans back then, then why in the hell would it be a good idea for the lgbt community right now?
Trying to be something you aren't isn't good for anyone, be they black, gay or black and gay. It's a practice that must never been encouraged.
News briefs:
Family advocacy group announces Pepsi boycott - brought to you by those who define boycotts by the lgbt community as acts of terror.
Right Wing Leftovers - Mike Huckabee says he is not "pro-sodomy." THANK YOU JESUS!!! I mean we don't just accept anybody.
DADT WITHOUT THE DA - In 1993, those who opposed gays in the military had Colin Powell, Congressman Sam Nunn, the phony studies of Paul Cameron, a host of public officials, and the full force of religious conservatives on their side. Now in 2008, all they have is a phony expert who gets destroyed every time she opens her mouth. I love America.
Always With The Bathroom; Always With The Misrepresentations - There are situations that can only be described as earring-yanking, wig snatching-off moments. What's happening now in Florida is at least 10 of them.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Violence is fine, just as long as no one gets naked
This isn't necessarily a gay issue but it illustrates the mindset of those who think that lgbts are the ruination of America:
The Chicago Shakespeare Theater's production of Macbeth left one audience member outraged over some surprising content.
Laurie Higgins, the director of the division of school advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), is a fan of Shakespeare and the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. But while attending a recent production of Macbeth, she was shocked when the actress portraying Lady Macbeth performed scenes topless.
. . . The play also included simulated sex scenes -- with one of the actors fondling Lady Macbeth's bare breasts -- and one scene was set in a strip bar with scantily clad actresses in leather thongs.
Higgins is the "activist" who helped give Deerfield High School in Illinois so much uncalled for attention last year. She helped create a moral panic because the lgbt play Angels in America was being read in a senior honors English class.
Higgins and those who agreed with her point of view (including our friend Peter LaBarbera) incorrectly said that children were being "indoctrinated into homosexuality" and were "forced" to read the play.
LaBarbera even posted some of the more questionable play dialogue on his webpage in an attempt to induce further outrage.
Of course Higgins, LaBarbera, and others who tried to say that Deerfield was "under siege" by the lgbt community convienently omitted that Angels in America was not required reading (students had a choice between the play and The Plague by Albert Camus). They also failed to mention that students were required to get their parents' permission in order to read Angels in America.
So much for that moral panic. What makes this one interesting is the play itself.
Those who are familiar with Shakespeare know that Macbeth tells the tale of a loyal soldier whose ambition leads him to become king of Scotland through violent means.
The play is filled with images of witchcraft, violence, blood, and murder. One scene even has a child being killed in front of his mother.
But Higgins makes no mention of Macbeth's violence in the article.
Maybe she thinks that Macbeth's violence is fine, just as long as we don't get to see Lady Macbeth's breasts.
Perhaps Higgins would be placated if Lady Macbeth was given a sharp left hook instead.
This isn't necessarily a gay issue but it illustrates the mindset of those who think that lgbts are the ruination of America:
The Chicago Shakespeare Theater's production of Macbeth left one audience member outraged over some surprising content.
Laurie Higgins, the director of the division of school advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), is a fan of Shakespeare and the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. But while attending a recent production of Macbeth, she was shocked when the actress portraying Lady Macbeth performed scenes topless.
. . . The play also included simulated sex scenes -- with one of the actors fondling Lady Macbeth's bare breasts -- and one scene was set in a strip bar with scantily clad actresses in leather thongs.
Higgins is the "activist" who helped give Deerfield High School in Illinois so much uncalled for attention last year. She helped create a moral panic because the lgbt play Angels in America was being read in a senior honors English class.
Higgins and those who agreed with her point of view (including our friend Peter LaBarbera) incorrectly said that children were being "indoctrinated into homosexuality" and were "forced" to read the play.
LaBarbera even posted some of the more questionable play dialogue on his webpage in an attempt to induce further outrage.
Of course Higgins, LaBarbera, and others who tried to say that Deerfield was "under siege" by the lgbt community convienently omitted that Angels in America was not required reading (students had a choice between the play and The Plague by Albert Camus). They also failed to mention that students were required to get their parents' permission in order to read Angels in America.
So much for that moral panic. What makes this one interesting is the play itself.
Those who are familiar with Shakespeare know that Macbeth tells the tale of a loyal soldier whose ambition leads him to become king of Scotland through violent means.
The play is filled with images of witchcraft, violence, blood, and murder. One scene even has a child being killed in front of his mother.
But Higgins makes no mention of Macbeth's violence in the article.
Maybe she thinks that Macbeth's violence is fine, just as long as we don't get to see Lady Macbeth's breasts.
Perhaps Higgins would be placated if Lady Macbeth was given a sharp left hook instead.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Enough of going to the streets - let's go to the library
I am currently reading an excellent book, Perfect Enemies: the religious right, the gay movement and the politics of the 1990s.
Perfect Enemies breaks down the culture war between the lgbt community and the religious right by zeroing in on key battles such as the argument about gays in the military that nearly screwed up Clinton's presidency and statewide anti-gay initiatives that took place in Oregon, Colorado, and Maine.
The authors, Chris Bell and John Gallagher, are very thorough and make several points that I agree with. Probably my favorite is:
At heart of the gay movement's lack of success in American politics is its failure to understand its opposition. By the start of the 1996 presidential campaign, the gay groups still lacked a research arm that would allow them to monitor the religious right's anti-gay activities.
To this day, I still don't see that comprehensive research arm. Certainly there are efforts in pockets (i.e. Truth Wins Out, Box Turtle Bulletin, myself , and probably a few others) but there doesn't seem to be a concerted effort by the lgbt community at large to educate themselves about the religious right.
Some of us instead paint people of faith with a broad intolerant brush and that's not only incorrect but it is damaging to our spirits. When we do this, we forget that lgbts are also people of faith.
We also forget that people of faith are not the enemies of lgbts. Our enemies are the spokespeople and organizations who exploit the beliefs, egos, and anxieties of some people of faith.
It's been my experience that there is some resistance to the idea that maybe lgbts should learn the language and methods of the religious right. Some view it as beneath the community and others view the idea as wasting time with compiling "gotcha" moments.
Seems to me that planning and anticipation would do us a lot more than waiting until the inevitable happens and then making speeches about protesting in the streets.
Everybody seems to want to be the firebrand or the fiery activist.
I say what is wrong with being the pragmatic manipulator whose quiet studies allow him or her to not only anticipate the actions of the religious right but also the ways to counter the skillful way they argue.
Can we devote as much attention to that as we do to "trying to get attention."
It's like what one of my favorite book, The Art of War, says:
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
News briefs
Gay Man to Be Tapped As Deputy Director of Obama's Public Liaison Office - It's not a cabinet position but I'm partly satisfied . . . for now
Lesbian couple invited on Inaugural Whistle Stop Tour - Girlfriends, when you get a chance, pull Obama aside and give him a nice earful.
Rick Warren sidekick demanded that all gays be arrested, published names of gays in Uganda - Perhaps when no one should be near Warren when he says the inaugural prayer. Lightning has a way of hitting more than one thing when it strikes.
Milwaukee OKs 'gay'-affirming school - In the spirit of researching the enemy, read this article. Feel free to comment on it - BUT BE NICE AND ACCURATE!!
I am currently reading an excellent book, Perfect Enemies: the religious right, the gay movement and the politics of the 1990s.
Perfect Enemies breaks down the culture war between the lgbt community and the religious right by zeroing in on key battles such as the argument about gays in the military that nearly screwed up Clinton's presidency and statewide anti-gay initiatives that took place in Oregon, Colorado, and Maine.
The authors, Chris Bell and John Gallagher, are very thorough and make several points that I agree with. Probably my favorite is:
At heart of the gay movement's lack of success in American politics is its failure to understand its opposition. By the start of the 1996 presidential campaign, the gay groups still lacked a research arm that would allow them to monitor the religious right's anti-gay activities.
To this day, I still don't see that comprehensive research arm. Certainly there are efforts in pockets (i.e. Truth Wins Out, Box Turtle Bulletin, myself , and probably a few others) but there doesn't seem to be a concerted effort by the lgbt community at large to educate themselves about the religious right.
Some of us instead paint people of faith with a broad intolerant brush and that's not only incorrect but it is damaging to our spirits. When we do this, we forget that lgbts are also people of faith.
We also forget that people of faith are not the enemies of lgbts. Our enemies are the spokespeople and organizations who exploit the beliefs, egos, and anxieties of some people of faith.
It's been my experience that there is some resistance to the idea that maybe lgbts should learn the language and methods of the religious right. Some view it as beneath the community and others view the idea as wasting time with compiling "gotcha" moments.
Seems to me that planning and anticipation would do us a lot more than waiting until the inevitable happens and then making speeches about protesting in the streets.
Everybody seems to want to be the firebrand or the fiery activist.
I say what is wrong with being the pragmatic manipulator whose quiet studies allow him or her to not only anticipate the actions of the religious right but also the ways to counter the skillful way they argue.
Can we devote as much attention to that as we do to "trying to get attention."
It's like what one of my favorite book, The Art of War, says:
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
News briefs
Gay Man to Be Tapped As Deputy Director of Obama's Public Liaison Office - It's not a cabinet position but I'm partly satisfied . . . for now
Lesbian couple invited on Inaugural Whistle Stop Tour - Girlfriends, when you get a chance, pull Obama aside and give him a nice earful.
Rick Warren sidekick demanded that all gays be arrested, published names of gays in Uganda - Perhaps when no one should be near Warren when he says the inaugural prayer. Lightning has a way of hitting more than one thing when it strikes.
Milwaukee OKs 'gay'-affirming school - In the spirit of researching the enemy, read this article. Feel free to comment on it - BUT BE NICE AND ACCURATE!!
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Another professor cries foul over religious right misrepresentation of research
In what seems to be becoming a habit, another professor has cried foul over what he calls the distortion of his work by the religious right.
Theo Sandfort, Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences (HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies - New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University) said his work is being incorrectly cited.
Recently, Regina Griggs of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) voiced her displeasure with a recent study conducted in California that said young gays and lesbians were more likely to suffer depression or commit suicide if their parents or guardians reacted negatively to their sexual orientation:
"So what we're doing is we're telling young people and we're telling their parents, 'You must accept those feelings. Who cares where they come from? It's a gay lifestyle -- endorse it!' ....and [then] they threaten parents and frighten them by saying, 'If you don't, then your child may commit suicide.'"
Griggs also added:
Studies in the Netherlands -- where there is an "extremely open society," notes Griggs -- found that although the homosexual lifestyle is affirmed through the culture, the suicide rates have remained steady or increased.
The "studies" Griggs alluded to is actually one study and it has been cited by the religious right numerous times to claim that homophobia has very little to do with the depression and suicide rate of lgbts
The study, Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders, appeared in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 2001 and it looked at psychiatric disorders in gay adults from the Netherlands.
The part Griggs alluded to said:
It is unclear to what extent findings from this Dutch study can be generalized to other cultures or nations. Compared with other Western countries, the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant. To the extent that the level of social acceptance of homosexuality induces differences in mental health status in relation to homosexuality, the observed differences might be greater in other Western countries than in the Netherlands.
Griggs incorrectly cites this study because it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand (i.e. negative behaviors in lgbt youth in the United States).
Also, while she has no problem citing the line about Dutch/Netherlands social climate being more "tolerant," she omits the more important line that comes before it - It is unclear to what extent findings from this Dutch study can be generalized to other cultures or nations.
Via email, Professor Sandfort said:
There is a difference between the U.S. and the Netherlands in terms of acceptance of homosexuality. That does not mean that there is no homophobia (and homophobic damage) in the Netherlands. It is not clear how difference in climate affects the prevalence of mental disorders. We don't know the final answers, but in the U.S. as well as the Netherlands, homophobia is related to mental health problems.
He also said that Griggs and others who use the study to claim that homophobia does not have an effect on negative lgbt behavior are clearly distorting his work:
"They use data to promote their moral convictions without truly understanding what the issues are. They are not interested in understanding how people's lives are affected by their social environment."
Sandfort's complaint is not the first time a professor has cried foul about how PFOX distorts his work.
Last year, Gary Remafedi, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, complained that PFOX distorted his work on suicide attempts in gay youth.
News briefs and other issues
It seems that when I'm busy at work, all sorts of interesting things happens.
A blogmate of mine had some problems with hackers:
SoapBlox, host of Pam Spaulding's group blog Pam's House Blend, was subject to a hack on Tuesday that took several blogs offline.
. . . A group called Astalavista has been linked to the hijacking of the affected server, now taken offline by the ISP, and using it to perform attacks on other websites, according to a notation on SoapBlox's front page.
It is not known what can be salvaged. Other sites affected include RadicalRuss.net, BlueJersey, American Liberalism and BeThink.org.
"I wish I could see a bright side to this," Spaulding told PageOneQ. "It's incredible that years of hard work can be destroyed in a flash, but we're in the digital age and there are people motivated to silence voices through malicious acts. I'm hopeful that data will be recovered, but Paul Preston of Soapblox has said he will not restore any sites. That means Pam's House Blend will need to find a new hosting platform and a redesign. That will take a good amount of time."
Pam is back online for now but I just wanted to give her a shout out of support. I have never met her personally but have had the pleasure of posting few diaries on the House Blend.
I hope things work out because the House Blend is a very vital source for this community.
Hang in there, girlfriend!!!
And in other news . . .
ACLU Asks Judge To Suspend Adoption, Foster Law - History will view that ballot measure as huge mistake. The courts need to strike it down quickly.
Soldiers say they'd leave military if 'gay' ban lifted - The only place where Elaine Donnelly has any credibility is on One News Now and the commentators there are giving her grief. Sometimes the world is a good place.
11 gay bars get letters threatening ricin attacks - According to the Mike Huckabee rules of life, this doesn't qualify as a hate crime because no lgbts had their heads cracked open. Okay that was Ann Coulterish of me, but what the hell.
And speaking of girlfriend, let me leave you all with something to ponder. The following link is a glimpse of what I think is the "real" Ann Coulter.
No it does not insult her body, but it is something to think about.
Watch the entire thing!!
In what seems to be becoming a habit, another professor has cried foul over what he calls the distortion of his work by the religious right.
Theo Sandfort, Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences (HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies - New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University) said his work is being incorrectly cited.
Recently, Regina Griggs of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) voiced her displeasure with a recent study conducted in California that said young gays and lesbians were more likely to suffer depression or commit suicide if their parents or guardians reacted negatively to their sexual orientation:
"So what we're doing is we're telling young people and we're telling their parents, 'You must accept those feelings. Who cares where they come from? It's a gay lifestyle -- endorse it!' ....and [then] they threaten parents and frighten them by saying, 'If you don't, then your child may commit suicide.'"
Griggs also added:
Studies in the Netherlands -- where there is an "extremely open society," notes Griggs -- found that although the homosexual lifestyle is affirmed through the culture, the suicide rates have remained steady or increased.
The "studies" Griggs alluded to is actually one study and it has been cited by the religious right numerous times to claim that homophobia has very little to do with the depression and suicide rate of lgbts
The study, Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders, appeared in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 2001 and it looked at psychiatric disorders in gay adults from the Netherlands.
The part Griggs alluded to said:
It is unclear to what extent findings from this Dutch study can be generalized to other cultures or nations. Compared with other Western countries, the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant. To the extent that the level of social acceptance of homosexuality induces differences in mental health status in relation to homosexuality, the observed differences might be greater in other Western countries than in the Netherlands.
Griggs incorrectly cites this study because it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand (i.e. negative behaviors in lgbt youth in the United States).
Also, while she has no problem citing the line about Dutch/Netherlands social climate being more "tolerant," she omits the more important line that comes before it - It is unclear to what extent findings from this Dutch study can be generalized to other cultures or nations.
Via email, Professor Sandfort said:
There is a difference between the U.S. and the Netherlands in terms of acceptance of homosexuality. That does not mean that there is no homophobia (and homophobic damage) in the Netherlands. It is not clear how difference in climate affects the prevalence of mental disorders. We don't know the final answers, but in the U.S. as well as the Netherlands, homophobia is related to mental health problems.
He also said that Griggs and others who use the study to claim that homophobia does not have an effect on negative lgbt behavior are clearly distorting his work:
"They use data to promote their moral convictions without truly understanding what the issues are. They are not interested in understanding how people's lives are affected by their social environment."
Sandfort's complaint is not the first time a professor has cried foul about how PFOX distorts his work.
Last year, Gary Remafedi, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, complained that PFOX distorted his work on suicide attempts in gay youth.
News briefs and other issues
It seems that when I'm busy at work, all sorts of interesting things happens.
A blogmate of mine had some problems with hackers:
SoapBlox, host of Pam Spaulding's group blog Pam's House Blend, was subject to a hack on Tuesday that took several blogs offline.
. . . A group called Astalavista has been linked to the hijacking of the affected server, now taken offline by the ISP, and using it to perform attacks on other websites, according to a notation on SoapBlox's front page.
It is not known what can be salvaged. Other sites affected include RadicalRuss.net, BlueJersey, American Liberalism and BeThink.org.
"I wish I could see a bright side to this," Spaulding told PageOneQ. "It's incredible that years of hard work can be destroyed in a flash, but we're in the digital age and there are people motivated to silence voices through malicious acts. I'm hopeful that data will be recovered, but Paul Preston of Soapblox has said he will not restore any sites. That means Pam's House Blend will need to find a new hosting platform and a redesign. That will take a good amount of time."
Pam is back online for now but I just wanted to give her a shout out of support. I have never met her personally but have had the pleasure of posting few diaries on the House Blend.
I hope things work out because the House Blend is a very vital source for this community.
Hang in there, girlfriend!!!
And in other news . . .
ACLU Asks Judge To Suspend Adoption, Foster Law - History will view that ballot measure as huge mistake. The courts need to strike it down quickly.
Soldiers say they'd leave military if 'gay' ban lifted - The only place where Elaine Donnelly has any credibility is on One News Now and the commentators there are giving her grief. Sometimes the world is a good place.
11 gay bars get letters threatening ricin attacks - According to the Mike Huckabee rules of life, this doesn't qualify as a hate crime because no lgbts had their heads cracked open. Okay that was Ann Coulterish of me, but what the hell.
And speaking of girlfriend, let me leave you all with something to ponder. The following link is a glimpse of what I think is the "real" Ann Coulter.
No it does not insult her body, but it is something to think about.
Watch the entire thing!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)